Jump to content


Add topic
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Latest comment: 14 years ago by Theornamentalist in topic Already done?

Already done?[edit]

I don't really see what the point of this project would be. Wiktionary already aims to include every given name and surname in every language, including IPA pronunciation, gender (if applicable), etymology, translations, rhymes, and categories. I don't know where "Image" would apply when explaining a name, but everything else here would be perfectly fine in Wikipedia. What would be the point in duplicating all this in a different project? --Yair rand 04:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was not aware of names on Wiktionary, neat. For others with this blind spot, I guess Wiktionary:CFI#Given_and_family_names is the place to start. --Mike Linksvayer 05:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
There is so much lacking in Wiktionary on names. I know the intent is such, but I think there's a lot more information we could provide on names. Check out Chris, theres nothing there, and although wikipedia has done a better job on that name, there is still this undefined part of which project hosts what information (sometimes wiktionary has more, other times wikipedia does) and although this does not denote the need for a new project, I feel like we could provide much more on each. I feel like the format of a dictionary restricts what we can use to explain (like paragraphed sections on history, more like wikipedia) and wikipedia, because of its encyclopedic nature, would not allow for some other features (numerology, anagrams, etc.)
I know in some sense there are duplications, but they are no different then a lot of wikipedia/wiktionary/wikinews or wikibooks/wikiversity articles, but there are different formats, where some are better suited than others, and I feel like names currently do not have a good home in any single wiki project. Oh, ha and an image, like seen in some wikipedia articles on names, doesn't necessarily help define it and could considered somewhat extraneous, but it wouldn't be hard to imagine an image of Christ (if the story in fact did occur and influence) on the "Chris" page; things like that Theornamentalist 05:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
There is a lot of work that needs to be done on names in Wiktionary, but I don't think a separate project would help. (BTW, anagrams are included on Wiktionary, and are automatically added by a bot.) The question is, what would this project provide that's new, that isn't already done on Wikipedia or Wiktionary? --Yair rand 05:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply
I believe that repeated material is inevitable, an example being: 90% of Wikinews articles are better covered 100 fold on wikipedia. My issue is mainly three things: No existing project has the correct format for names, as I mentioned above, no project has sufficient information existing, and finally, on the link provided by Mike above (as with what I mentioned from the deletion in Wikipedia of unusual names) there are required standards which may omit a lot of information. Every name has a history to it, so does every last name, as well as many other properties, and I cant see a last name like Berkowski or Ruan ever Zaiken ever finding there way onto a dictionary. Wiktionary is just not formatted to host these kind of requirements.Theornamentalist 15:16, 16 March 2010 (UTC)Reply